View
143
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC. Master IK, CIW, MMI L.M. Bosveld-de Smet Mon. 30/10/06; 16.00-18.00. Outline. CSCW: classifications / frameworks Collaboration: “computer conferencing” Features Basic structure Social – technical gap Communication and coordination: “the Coordinator” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
CMC/CC A
Groupware, CSCW, CMC
Master IK, CIW, MMI
L.M. Bosveld-de Smet
Mon. 30/10/06; 16.00-18.00
Outline
CSCW: classifications / frameworks Collaboration: “computer conferencing”
Features Basic structure
Social – technical gap Communication and coordination: “the
Coordinator” Speech-act based protocol
Groupware vs. CSCW vs. CMC
Groupware Applications written to support collaboration of several users Team-oriented computer products
CSCW Group working (cooperation, collaboration, competition ?)
supported by computer Makes use of groupware Research: design and evaluation of new technologies to support
social processes of team work, often among distant partners CMC
Group communication supported by computer Research: interpersonal communication via computer
Overview CSCW
Groupware / CSCW / group support through CMC
Communication Collaboration Coordination
CSCW: system classes
CSCW: detailed overview of systems
Groupware systems: classifications
By where and when the participants are performing the cooperative work (refined) time/space matrix
By function By aspect of cooperative work supported
Dix et al.’s classification
By function in cooperative framework primarily supported Direct communication between participants:
computer-mediated communication Common understanding: meeting and decision
supporting systems Participants’interaction with shared work objects:
shared applications and artifacts
Cooperative work frameworksDix et al. (2003)
Shneiderman’s classification
Asynchronous interactions: e-mail, news groups, …
Synchronous distributed interactions: group editing, Internet Relay Chat, video conferencing, …
Face to Face interactions: brainstorming, voting, and ranking, …
Synchronous CMC
Example (1)
Example (2): Avatar Conference
CSCW: global results
Determinants of success are not clear Electronic mail, and chat: widespread success story Video conferencing: slowly growing Shared calendar programs: repeatedly spurned
Earliest CMC work
Hiltz & Turoff, 1993 Foundation: development of systems supporting
large groups to communicate about complex problems
Most fundamental principles for optimizing group support: Structures for group tasks User tailorability
“Computer conferencing”
Structured group communication accumulating permanent transcript of discussion
Most important features to take care of: Tailorability Quantitative communication structures Content-based communication Indirect communication Roles Notifications
Basic computer conferencing structure
Objects / nodes characterizing system Relationships / links between objects / nodes
Comment Reply Person Key words
Comment later than / earlier than
in response to
author / editor / reader
relevant material
Reply author / editor / reader
relevant material
Person member of conference
interests of
Key words related to
Current generation systems
Findings Turoff et al. (2001) Infrequent ad hoc use No continual process Little tailorability No seamless transitions among various modes
Information overload limit Limitation of discourse structures
Basically comment-response format
Semantic hypertext structure
Structure to organize a constructive debate about a topic in order to achieve: Collective group insights into
Alternative desirable resolutions Feasible actions to take …
Argumentation systems Aquanet gIBIS SEPIA Virtual Notebook Design Intent
Discourse structure for debating and argumentation
actions, goals, criteria, requirements, solutions,decisions
arguments arguments
options
Pro link Con link
opposition link
voting scales: desirability, feasibility
voting scales: importance, validity
Challenge CMC systems
Promotion of “collective intelligence” Hiltz et al. (1986): elimination of process losses
due to blocking of alternative opinions and views Design of human communication systems =
design of social systems Roles Rules Floor control …
Bridge the social – technical gap
Social-technical gapAckerman (2001)
Findings: CMC elements allow enough communicative suppleness computational entities (information transfer, roles, policies, …)
lack flexibility, nuance and contextualization similar to real life social activity attitude towards sharing information / making work visible lack of shared histories and meanings conflicting or multiple goals exceptions awareness vs. privacy vs. disturbing others lack of negotiation about norms of use, exceptions, breakdowns critical mass problem tailorability lack of incentives
Social – technical gap in action
Online privacy P3P: privacy preferences project of W3
consortium
No sufficient nuance No social flexibility
Systems require people to explicitly switch states Cf. “The Coordinator” (Winograd & Flores, 1986)
No allowance of ambiguity
Elements of Communication
Conversational Structure
Turn-taking Context (internal, external) Topics, focus, forms of utterances Breakdown and repair Construction of shared understanding
Speech Act Theory
Wittgenstein: Philosphical Investigations Austin: How to Do Things with Words
locutionary act illocutionary act perlocutionary act
Searle: The Classification of Illocutionary Acts representatives; directives; commissives;
expressives; declarations
Coordinator / Action Workflow
Structured conversations Action-oriented conversation
Central coordinating structure for human organizations
Based on taxonomy of linguistic acts Design concerned with breakdown anticipation
Coordinator
Coordinator under criticism
Suchman: "the adoption of speech act theory as a foundation for system design, with its emphasis on the encoding of speakers’ intentions into explicit categories, carries with it an agenda of discipline and control over organization members’ actions"
Application of CSCW to education
Distance learning Exploration of novel teaching and learning styles Creation of more engaging experiences for
students Greater learning efficiency
Research in cooperative systems
More difficult than in single-user applications Multiplicity of users (controlled experiments?) Flood of data from multiple users (orderly analysis?) No commonly accepted methodology
Wireless brainstorming
Davis et al. (2002) “Wireless brainstorming: overcoming status effects in small group decisions”
Simple and inexpensive GDSS on wireless handheld device Mitigation of adverse impact of status differences Brainstorm on potential market names for computer game Discussion of names in group Voting of the best name Males = higher status group members Anonimity helps minimize effects of status on group decisions
Cultural differences in participants’ online collaborative behaviors
Kim & Bonk (2002) “Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration”
Computer-supported collaborative learning of multicultural learners Comparison of online collaborative behaviors among preservice
teachers from 3 different cultures Korean students: more social and contextually driven Finnish students: more group-focused, refelective, and theoretically
driven U.S. students: more action-oriented, and pragmatic in seeking results
and giving solutions
Recommended